is direct, a locally attached hard drive? a network filesystem will NEVER perform as well as a locally attached disk. I think you're numbers aren't too unreasonable. You could probably improve your performance by adding some performance translators. Write behind would likely help you a bit. At 06:59 PM 2/21/2009, Nathan Stratton wrote: >Direct: >[root at xen0 unify]# dd if=/dev/zero of=/sdb2/bar bs=1G count=8 >8+0 records in >8+0 records out >8589934592 bytes (8.6 GB) copied, 51.3145 seconds, 167 MB/s > >Gluster: >[root at xen0 unify]# dd if=/dev/zero of=/unify/foo bs=1G count=8 >8+0 records in >8+0 records out >8589934592 bytes (8.6 GB) copied, 87.7885 seconds, 97.8 MB/s > >Boxes are connected with 10 gig Infiniband so that should not be an issue. > >http://share.robotics.net/glusterfs.vol >http://share.robotics.net/glusterfsd.vol > >><> >Nathan Stratton CTO, BlinkMind, Inc. >nathan at robotics.net nathan at blinkmind.com >http://www.robotics.net http://www.blinkmind.com > > >_______________________________________________ >Gluster-users mailing list >Gluster-users at gluster.org >http://zresearch.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
